list_volunteer_hours

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The word 'List' implies a read-only operation, and 'your' indicates it returns the caller's own hours. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like pagination, ordering, or error behavior. This is acceptable for a simple list tool but not fully detailed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence without extra words. Every part contributes: 'List' is the action, 'your logged volunteer hours' is the resource, and 'for a school' adds the scope. This is appropriately concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does and the scope. It could be improved by stating the return format or any prerequisites, but for this simple read-only list operation, it is largely sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has one required parameter (school_id) with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description helps by tying 'for a school' to the school_id, giving it meaning. However, it does not explain how to obtain valid school_id values or any format details, leaving partial compensation for the missing schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'logged volunteer hours' and scope 'for a school.' This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling list tools (e.g., list_photos, list_files) that serve different data types.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage by stating 'for a school,' which signals the need for a school_id parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. The context is clear enough but lacks direct guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.